Quote:
Originally Posted by strombad
The "at fault until they show otherwise" portion is the pedestrian running across the street in an undesignated zone where they do not have the right of way.
At WORST, I would be held partially responsible. However, considering the fact that I had:
- Checked the situation
- Noted no obvious pedestrians or problems that could/should have become relevant
- Kept my speed under the limit
- Had used a hands free device to operate my telephone
- and moved the device only to avoid possible complications to my ability to shift (thus drive safely)
Then I'm fairly confident I'd be just fine. Things come up, I wasn't just grabbing my phone for fun. Unfortunately I was operating my vehicle with due care in every possible legal sense and only nearly struck the man due to his own extremely negligence.
Funny though that a pedestrian risking his life is seen as somehow less "stupid" than the man who followed every possible precaution to ensure his manoeuvre was appropriate.
Again, questions of partial responsibility aside, I would still be alive and in good health. The pedestrian would be lucky to get away with just broken bones.
EDIT: And to clarify to MMF, say "1 Mississippi 2", take your eyes away from something when you say "1" and put them back when you say "2". That's not much more than a glance.
|
From a completely legal sense you'd likely be held entirely responsible because you do admit to being distracted while it happened. It doesn't matter for how long or how safe you were otherwise being... "I looked down at my phone for a second..." and then it's completely your fault.